Monday, April 22, 2013

MungBeing - American Revolution, Part Deux

Ted Rall's screed against American politics (The Anti-American Manifesto) was sure to resonate with
someone of my peculiar bias and bile, what with my volcanic vitriol toward our
country's duplicitous government. However, it seems Rall's ambitions with his
book merit a weightier tome, for his slim-volume rant is practically a toothless
tirade - ironic considering how he peppers the pages with railings against the
pervasive passivity plaguing the American people. He gets his point across, but
in such a meek way that the reader is hardly moved to action - and yet Rall's
entire intent with his manifesto is to instigate revolution.

This
diatribes in this petite tome aim explicitly to rouse the raging beast within us
all - the beast that slumbers, yes, but the one who sleeps with one eye open. If
someone would simply prod the inner beast fully awake, we would collectively
catapult to action and vanquish the leaders who oppress us on all fronts,
especially economically.

Nonetheless, Rall does partially redeem his too-tame tone
in that he refuses to simply slurp up the Hippie Liberal brand of
cookies-and-cream ice cream. Rall is no orthodox peacenik. He makes a clean
break with doctrinaire lefty ideology by advocating for violent change rather
than peaceful revolution. To a dogmatic pacifist this could be unnerving, but
his appeals to logos and pathos in this case are sound. Ethically speaking, his
arguments may need some work - but then again, violence is not really ever an
ethical option. In extreme circumstances, where leaders ruthlessly exploit the
people for egregious gains, physical violence might indeed be the best approach
against tyranny - Gandhi and MLK non-violence ethics be damned.

A
self-avowed progressive promoting violent revolution is a bold move to make and
I applaud Rall's courage in doing so, even if I question the validity of
violence. You could even call Rall's assertions brazen, but they do have an
intuitive logic which eclipses any concern about his sanity. Rall is lucidly
indignant at the appallingly crappy condition of things in the United States.

Rall lays out his arguments against the government very well, but it does
help if one is already well-versed about his targets of critique. You cannot
plunge blindly into his manifesto, barely cognizant of the sorry state of
American political affairs.

That said, it's still unclear as to what Rall
wants us to do, and how we are supposed to do it. He seems determined that we
must take up arms against our government, but he concedes that he does not want
to lead the revolution, and he also fails to provide us with a roadmap as to how
to get there. He mentions that revolution is risky and messy, but it would help
if he actually took some initiative to show us the way. Sure, maybe revolution
cannot truly be planned, like the French Revolution, but we have to start with
something, and Rall seems to lack the fortitude, or the erudition, or both, to
give us any suggestions. Which is all fine and well as his tome is not a
guidebook, but a manifesto. But aren't manifestos supposed to also be definitive
about what actions to take? The Surrealist Manifesto, for example - didn't that
clearly lay out not only an explanation of what the Surrealists opposed, but the
methods by which the Surrealists would oppose it?

Rall's book was published
a year before the Occupy movement took root. I was wondering if maybe that was
the type of movement Rall was hoping to spark with his manifesto. Upon further
investigation, we learn that Rall has indeed been involved in the Occupy
Movement from its early days - and yet, predictably, is very vocal about its
shortcomings. While he agrees with the aims of the occupiers, he feels that the
movement is in disarray, unfocused, and too restrained in its tactics. "The rich
and powerful never relinquish their prerogatives voluntarily. Only violence or
the credible threat of violence can force them to give up what they stole
through violence and corruption," he says in his blog entry, For America’s
New Radicals, a Coming-Out Party—and Brutal Cops.

With Anti-American
Manifesto, maybe Rall feared censorship or was urged to take his rhetoric
down a notch. Either way, it's oxymoronically odd that a book that calls for
feral action against the government is so domesticated in making its pleas.

Rall's call to revolution is compelling in its way, but if a reader feels
simultaneously reinforced in his or her convictions but impotent as to how to
take action, then I say the book only half succeeds.